Opens in a new tab

KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 25 June 2026)

Date25 June 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_530/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_530/2025
PartiesKEEEX SAS v. ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUND…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 25 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_530/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division rules on the objections raised by Adobe, OpenAI and the other defendants against the brief filed on 5 June 2026 by KEEEX, proprietor of EP 2 949 070, in an infringement action met with a counterclaim for revocation. She refuses a further application to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP, holds that adding two Truepic products is an inadmissible change of claim (Rule 263 RoP) and disregards as late, under Rule 9.2 RoP, the new material on infringement and remedies, save for three points admitted under Rule 36 RoP.

Question

May the proprietor, in its reply, file a new application to amend the patent, extend the action to new products and add new infringement arguments?

Decision

Largely, no. The defendants’ criticisms could have been anticipated when the initial amendment application was filed, and nothing shows that the new amendments could not have been put forward then: the Rule 30.2 application is refused. The products « Truepic Lens » and « Script Truepic Display » already appeared in KEEEX’s bailiff reports. Adding them at this stage is an inadmissible change of claim. Admitted under Rule 36, however, are the claim charts (exhibits 43.1 to 43.22), a reply to OpenAI on the « identification fingerprint » feature and the comments on the defendants’ economic reports, to which the defendants may respond in their final brief due on 6 July 2026.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.2, 29(e), 30.1, 30.2, 32.3, 36 and 263
Case law cited
Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_464/2024), Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 27 June 2024, Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering, Milan Local Division, 17 September 2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_530/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 27 November 2025 KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 27 November 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025

    Toutes les exceptions préliminaires sont rejetées : la compétence repose sur l'article 7, point 2, de Bruxelles I bis, s'étend aux parties nationales hors JUB selon l'arrêt BSH, et la division de Paris est compétente.

  2. 4 February 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 4 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025

    La division locale de Paris refuse de rendre une décision par défaut contre KEEEX, qui a justifié dans le délai du blocage des fonds puis produit la garantie dans la forme précisée, les objections d'Adobe étant purement formelles.

  3. 1 June 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 1 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025

    La demande de réexamen de l’ordonnance du 24 avril 2026 est rejetée, la demande de provision sur dommages-intérêts restant dans le débat. L’autorisation d’appel est refusée.

  4. 25 June 2026 KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 25 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
  5. 10 July 2026 Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 10 July 2026) Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La demande de révision discrétionnaire d’Adobe est rejetée : la demande de provision de Keeex ne viole pas l’engagement procédural, n’est pas tardive et sera examinée au fond.

  6. 20 July 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 20 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025

    La garantie pour frais de 200 000 euros imposée à KEEEX est augmentée de 100 000 euros, à fournir sous forme de garantie bancaire dans un délai d'un mois.

  7. 29 July 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 29 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025

    Les demandes de révision de KEEEX et d'Adobe sont rejetées : la nouvelle demande de modification du brevet, l'ajout de produits Truepic et les développements tardifs sur la contrefaçon restent écartés.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La nouvelle demande de modification du brevet est rejetée, l’ajout de deux produits Truepic est un changement de demande irrecevable et les éléments nouveaux tardifs sont écartés, sauf trois points admis au titre de la règle 36.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 949 070
Verification process of the integrity of numerical data bloc
recorded proprietor: Aix-Marseille Université et Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Adobe v Keeex (CoA, 13 March 2026) · KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 29 July 2026) · Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 10 July 2026) · KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 1 June 2026) · ADOBE v KEEEX (CoA, 8 May 2026) · Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 30 April 2026) · KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 27 November 2025) · KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 8 September 2025)		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.